Allowed

Subramanya v. State by

Karnataka HC19 Jul 2022CRL.P/5076/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed an FIR against three petitioners accused of abusing the second respondent and pushing her out of the house. The Court held the allegations did not satisfy essential ingredients for the charged offences under the IPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned FIR quashed insofar as it relates to accused Nos.2 to 4.

Subramanya Vs State by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5076 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . SUBRAMANYA S/O SATHYANARAYANA RESIDING AT GOSEGOWDERA STREET SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA, PIN CODE NO.571438

¶9

CORRECT ADDRESS S. SUBRAMANYA S/O SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT GOVINDAPPA STREET #527, SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA PIN CODE-571438

¶10

2 . SAVITHA RESIDING AT GOSEGOWDERA STREET SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA, PIN CODE NO.571438

¶11

CORRECT ADDRESS N R SAVITHA W/O S SUBRAMANYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT GOVINDAPPA STREET

¶12

¶13

#527, SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA PIN CODE-571438

¶14

3 . GUNDA TO BE KNOWN MANDYA KARNATAKA PIN CODE 571438.

¶15

CORRECT ADDRESS K SHIVAKUMARA @ GUNDA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT #1510 GOSEGOWDARA STREET SRIRANGAPATNA MANDYA PIN CODE-571438

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI RAJU C N, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND :

¶19

1 . STATE BY SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN POLICE MANDYA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE PIN CODE-560001

¶20

2 . MADHU D/O SRINIVASAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT GOSEGOWDARA STREET 1ST CROSS, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN MANDYA PIN CODE-571438

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

¶23

(BY SRI S VISHWAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.123/2019 OF SRIRANGAPATNA POLICE MANDYA ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417,420,504,506,323 R/W 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

FIR was lodged by the second respondent

¶28

alleging that she was in love with accused No.1 and accused No.1 had promised to marry her and when she insisted him to marry her, accused No.1 went on postponing the marriage for one or the other reason and also blocked her number and when she went to the house of accused No.1, at that point of time, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 who are the brothers and wife of accused No.2 abused her in filthy language and pushed her out of the house. Thereafter, when

¶29

¶30

she met the accused No.1, he abused her in filthy language and refused to marry her. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 417, 420, 504, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, accused Nos.2 to 4 are before this Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only allegation against the petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 is that they abused the second respondent in filthy language and also pushed her out

¶32

of the house when she came to visit the accused No.1. Hence, in the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of aforesaid offences, the registration of FIR against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 is impermissible.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶34

appearing for the respondent-State submits that the

¶35

¶36

petitioners having abused the second respondent in filthy language and also having pushed her out of the house have committed the aforesaid offences. Hence, registration of FIR cannot be faulted with.

¶37

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶38

The allegations made against the

¶39

petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 does not satisfy the essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 323 of IPC. To constitute commission of offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, the intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause breach of public peace or commission of any other offence. In the present case, the abusive language said to have been used by the petitionersaccused has not resulted in causing breach of public

¶40

¶41

peace or commission of any other offence. Hence, the continuation of investigation against the petitionersaccused Nos.2 to 4 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶44

ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.123/2019

¶45

registered by the Srirangapatna Town Police Station

¶46

insofar as it relates to accused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

RKA

Subramanya v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanya v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Spi Green Energy Vs the State of Karnataka

Rosemary Ratnam Vs Anam Hussain (Minor)

Sri.D. Chandrashekara Vs the State of Karnataka by

M. Manjunath Vs Suresh Mahalingappa Latur

B.K. Manju Vs State by Bagalur Police

Brundha Vs State by K R Nagara Police